All the drunks looked out for one another and took sidestreets and alternative routes in order to avoide the cops? Submitter, drunk drivers are assholes. It's not stupid to get drunk drivers off the streets. Now, it sucks for the other four people out of 240 who were issued citations for shiat which isn't a menace on the streets (expired licenses and suspended licenses) by themselves............... but fk drunk drivers.

ExperianScaresCthulhu:All the drunks looked out for one another and took sidestreets and alternative routes in order to avoide the cops? Submitter, drunk drivers are assholes. It's not stupid to get drunk drivers off the streets. Now, it sucks for the other four people out of 240 who were issued citations for shiat which isn't a menace on the streets (expired licenses and suspended licenses) by themselves............... but fk drunk drivers.

I didn't see that subby made a comment one way or another about the acceptabillty of DUI. Bicycling under the influence? STFU cops.

this is one case where I think the rules of the road, and especially the steep penalties, should not apply to bicyclists. I was hit by a drunk bicyclist. I had to pop my side-view mirror back into place after the crash. The guy should be applauded for not getting behind the wheel of a dangerous vehicle and instead putting basically only himself at risk.

Jenna Tellya:this is one case where I think the rules of the road, and especially the steep penalties, should not apply to bicyclists. I was hit by a drunk bicyclist. I had to pop my side-view mirror back into place after the crash. The guy should be applauded for not getting behind the wheel of a dangerous vehicle and instead putting basically only himself at risk.

Jenna Tellya:this is one case where I think the rules of the road, and especially the steep penalties, should not apply to bicyclists. I was hit by a drunk bicyclist. I had to pop my side-view mirror back into place after the crash. The guy should be applauded for not getting behind the wheel of a dangerous vehicle and instead putting basically only himself at risk.

Ok, here's a what if. How would you feel if you were driving and drunk bicyclist rides right out into a county road intersection and gets blasted at 50 miles per hour. Would you be so casual if your hood was dented, your wind shield shattered, and blood all over your car? You get out of the car slowly only to see the horribly mangled corpse who's organs are now spread over a 20 foot area.

Now you and others will say "Serves him right, I don't care." But one person dead and another who is DEFINITELY going to have emotional trauma for the rest of their life.

Yea, I'm ok with the penalties. But then again when I go drinking the most mechanical device I operate is a bottle opener.

In my area they have a free service, run by college kids, that will not only pick you up if you get blotto, their partner will drive your car home as well. Their phone number is posted at every bar in town and the bartender will even call them for you. My sis has used them before and always gives them a nice tip for their gas money, but they don't expect it.

I don't drive at all. I've never driven drunk even when I did drive, but I still ended up smacking into trees, stop signs, lamp posts, etc. Either they were all suicidal and jumped in front of me or I'm really bad at driving. So I don't drive. Problem solved.

Sorry to challenge your MADD brainwashing ...check out the follow up to the book superfreakanomics.......the break down is there......You can also find out why blow jobs are cheaper today than they were 10-15 years ago.......

To me, hopping on a bike, whether drunk or sober, is doing everyone a favor except the revenue grabbing cops and court system. Why do we need laws to protect us from ourselves? Whether it's drunk bicycling or driving a car without a seatbelt, it's none of the government's goddamned business since the only one we could possibly hurt is ourself.

s1ugg0:Jenna Tellya: this is one case where I think the rules of the road, and especially the steep penalties, should not apply to bicyclists. I was hit by a drunk bicyclist. I had to pop my side-view mirror back into place after the crash. The guy should be applauded for not getting behind the wheel of a dangerous vehicle and instead putting basically only himself at risk.

Ok, here's a what if. How would you feel if you were driving and drunk bicyclist rides right out into a county road intersection and gets blasted at 50 miles per hour. Would you be so casual if your hood was dented, your wind shield shattered, and blood all over your car? You get out of the car slowly only to see the horribly mangled corpse who's organs are now spread over a 20 foot area.

Now you and others will say "Serves him right, I don't care." But one person dead and another who is DEFINITELY going to have emotional trauma for the rest of their life.

Yea, I'm ok with the penalties. But then again when I go drinking the most mechanical device I operate is a bottle opener.

Emotional distress and minor property damage, vs death to a carload full of innocents. Those are quite different scales if you ask me. In your hypothetical, I would definitely not think "serves him right", I'd think "bad luck to him and the innocent, but thank god he wasn't driving a car". If he were on a motorcycle I might think "serves him right" ;)

Jenna Tellya:s1ugg0: Jenna Tellya: this is one case where I think the rules of the road, and especially the steep penalties, should not apply to bicyclists. I was hit by a drunk bicyclist. I had to pop my side-view mirror back into place after the crash. The guy should be applauded for not getting behind the wheel of a dangerous vehicle and instead putting basically only himself at risk.

Ok, here's a what if. How would you feel if you were driving and drunk bicyclist rides right out into a county road intersection and gets blasted at 50 miles per hour. Would you be so casual if your hood was dented, your wind shield shattered, and blood all over your car? You get out of the car slowly only to see the horribly mangled corpse who's organs are now spread over a 20 foot area.

Now you and others will say "Serves him right, I don't care." But one person dead and another who is DEFINITELY going to have emotional trauma for the rest of their life.

Yea, I'm ok with the penalties. But then again when I go drinking the most mechanical device I operate is a bottle opener.

Emotional distress and minor property damage, vs death to a carload full of innocents. Those are quite different scales if you ask me. In your hypothetical, I would definitely not think "serves him right", I'd think "bad luck to him and the innocent, but thank god he wasn't driving a car". If he were on a motorcycle I might think "serves him right" ;)

And if said intoxicated cyclist hit a pedestrian because they couldn't stop at full speed?

Checkpoint was too early. Had they gone until 3:00 am they would have found half a dozen drunks.

One man was issued a citation for an outstanding warrant from Butte County. Two others were issued citations for driving with a suspended license, and two other drivers were driving with expired licenses.

In that case it wasn't a sobriety checkpoint, it was a general traffic enforcement checkpoint and, in my opinion, was unconstitutional.

Okay, for this whole argument about riding a bike drunk being better than driving or not, I feel like I ought to point out that you can ride a bike slowly and you're no danger to anyone, including yourself unless you happen to fall over into a pit full of angry weasels.

I May Be Crazy But...:wild9: And he could not have been THAT intoxicated. Seriously, do you know how hard it is to stay upright on a bicycle while drunk?

Yeah, I do know. You can ride a bike pretty drunk, if you ride regularly. Although to be fair, I've never ridden when I was full out, throwing up drunk. I got off the bike to throw up.

Curiously I must agree. Maintaining your balance on bike, motorized or not, is surprisingly manageable even if your balance is starting to wobble. The biggest problem with driving drunk is the arrogance that comes with an alcohol buzz, and the stunningly stupid decisions it encourages you to make. Like riding a bike or motorcycle drunk.

I May Be Crazy But...:Okay, for this whole argument about riding a bike drunk being better than driving or not, I feel like I ought to point out that you can ride a bike slowly and you're no danger to anyone, including yourself unless you happen to fall over into a pit full of angry weasels.

CruiserTwelve:About 240 drivers were also screened between 8 p.m. and 1 a.m.

Checkpoint was too early. Had they gone until 3:00 am they would have found half a dozen drunks.

One man was issued a citation for an outstanding warrant from Butte County. Two others were issued citations for driving with a suspended license, and two other drivers were driving with expired licenses.

In that case it wasn't a sobriety checkpoint, it was a general traffic enforcement checkpoint and, in my opinion, was unconstitutional.

I think a lot of departments are using DWI checkpoints as a cover for "papers please" type operations that would not be allowable, but since we've carved out an exception for DWI they'll abuse it as much as possible

Saturation patrols are much better at actually finding drunks, but those require some work, like actually driving around and looking for people who are driving poorly.

ThatGuyFromTheInternet:And if said intoxicated cyclist hit a pedestrian because they couldn't stop at full speed?

In my fantasy world, penalties are based on the amount of increased risk to others. I'm not saying BUI should be legal, just that DUI penalties are based on motor vehicle risks, and the scenarios where drunk cycling causes death or serious injury to others are far less likely than drunk driving, thus the penalty should be much much less. Minor stuff I think should carry the same penalties for cyclists and drivers, as things like failure to signal rarely cause serious incidents in either case, thus the total increased risk of harm is similar.

SweetDickens:Sorry to challenge your MADD brainwashing ...check out the follow up to the book superfreakanomics.......the break down is there......You can also find out why blow jobs are cheaper today than they were 10-15 years ago.......

This is from the book you cited:Doing the math, you find that on a per-mile basis, a drunk walker is eight times more likely to get killed than a drunk driver.

There's one important caveat: a drunk walker isn't likely to hurt or kill anyone other than her- or himself. That can't be said of a drunk driver. In fatal accidents involving alcohol, 36 percent of the victims are either passengers, pedestrians, or other drivers. Still, even after factoring in the deaths of those innocents, walking drunk leads to five times as many deaths per mile as driving drunk.

The part in bold is what makes drunk drivers assholes. I couldn't care less if your drunk ass falls off a bridge on the way home, just as long as you don't hurt me or mine while you stumble home.

The other "flaw" is that they're evaluating this on a per-mile basis instead of a per-trip basis.

ExperianScaresCthulhu:All the drunks looked out for one another and took sidestreets and alternative routes in order to avoide the cops? Submitter, drunk drivers are assholes. It's not stupid to get drunk drivers off the streets. Now, it sucks for the other four people out of 240 who were issued citations for shiat which isn't a menace on the streets (expired licenses and suspended licenses) by themselves............... but fk drunk drivers.

Wait a minute, you think it is a good idea for the police to engage in five hours of of searches and license lookups for no reason at all? Do you think drunks have a checkpoint phone tree? And if so, how would the first drunk know? None of them got pulled over.

You are entitled to your opinion. If that is really the way you see the world, I would just hope that you vote less, or, better yet, not at all.

In that case it wasn't a sobriety checkpoint, it was a general traffic enforcement checkpoint and, in my opinion, was unconstitutional.

yeah, but a lot of times the finer points of DUI law are lost on the rank and file. it's not like citizens pay attention to their rights either - people consent to things they shouldn't all the damn time.

ah well. the point was to show the flag and convince the voters that the cops were doing their jobs, not to catch drunk drivers. in that respect, they succeeded.

I May Be Crazy But...:wild9: And he could not have been THAT intoxicated. Seriously, do you know how hard it is to stay upright on a bicycle while drunk?

Yeah, I do know. You can ride a bike pretty drunk, if you ride regularly. Although to be fair, I've never ridden when I was full out, throwing up drunk. I got off the bike to throw up.

When I was younger and dumber, I did this a number of times. Once, I blacked out mid journey. I still made it where I was going, but I apparently collapsed on the sidewalk, and lost my lunch.

A girl I used to work with did it a number of times, then one time too many. She hit a parked car, and woke up in the hospital with a skull fracture. She swore off riding drunk after that, and always wears her helmet now.

SweetDickens:Sorry to challenge your MADD brainwashing ...check out the follow up to the book superfreakanomics.......the break down is there......You can also find out why blow jobs are cheaper today than they were 10-15 years ago.......

U. of Chicago economists would certainly know about the prices for giving BJs.

I live in Norway, where an average speeding ticket costs about $600--- rather than the $100-ish it costs in the US. The high fine is a serious deterrent to speeding, so few people speed, and there is little revenue to be generated. In the US, the fines are tolerable--- a surcharge for arriving faster-- and in the US, it is simply regarded as bad luck to get a ticket, since 'everyone' speeds.

Public safety is NOT the issue with traffic laws in the US--- same with DWI. Around here, there is zero-tolerance (not the absurdly high BAC levels that are legal in the US), and fines begin at $10K (here in Norway). You are considered a serious fark-up if you get a DUI. In the US, it is a rite of passage--- no big deal- to get a DUI (first offense, at least). It is a joke. If they want to get serious, set serious fines and serious consequences. Otherwise, it is all a money-grab.

Jenna Tellya:ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And if said intoxicated cyclist hit a pedestrian because they couldn't stop at full speed?

In my fantasy world, penalties are based on the amount of increased risk to others. I'm not saying BUI should be legal, just that DUI penalties are based on motor vehicle risks, and the scenarios where drunk cycling causes death or serious injury to others are far less likely than drunk driving, thus the penalty should be much much less. Minor stuff I think should carry the same penalties for cyclists and drivers, as things like failure to signal rarely cause serious incidents in either case, thus the total increased risk of harm is similar.

Jenna Tellya:this is one case where I think the rules of the road, and especially the steep penalties, should not apply to bicyclists. I was hit by a drunk bicyclist. I had to pop my side-view mirror back into place after the crash. The guy should be applauded for not getting behind the wheel of a dangerous vehicle and instead putting basically only himself at risk.

Tell that to the old man who was killed by Chris Bucchere in San Francisco.

Lord Farkwad:The sad thing is he doesn't have to worry about losing his bicycle drivers license or have his bicycle insurance rates going up. I wonder what it's going to cost to get his bike out of impound.

Actually in California riding a bike DUI is the same as if you were driving a car. Your licence can still get yanked and your insurance rates will go up when you get it back.

jmr61:ExperianScaresCthulhu: All the drunks looked out for one another and took sidestreets and alternative routes in order to avoide the cops? Submitter, drunk drivers are assholes. It's not stupid to get drunk drivers off the streets. Now, it sucks for the other four people out of 240 who were issued citations for shiat which isn't a menace on the streets (expired licenses and suspended licenses) by themselves............... but fk drunk drivers.

I didn't see that subby made a comment one way or another about the acceptabillty of DUI. Bicycling under the influence? STFU cops.

You sound republican though so given that GFY.

Submitter's comment was the 'strange' tag followed by 'nets one DWI arrest'. I read that like roll eyes, like 'what's the point of a DWI checkpoint if that's all it's going to net?' If that wasn't submitter's intention, I apologize for misunderstanding submitter's intent.

----------------------------------------------------------

angryjd:ExperianScaresCthulhu: All the drunks looked out for one another and took sidestreets and alternative routes in order to avoide the cops? Submitter, drunk drivers are assholes. It's not stupid to get drunk drivers off the streets. Now, it sucks for the other four people out of 240 who were issued citations for shiat which isn't a menace on the streets (expired licenses and suspended licenses) by themselves............... but fk drunk drivers.

Wait a minute, you think it is a good idea for the police to engage in five hours of of searches and license lookups for no reason at all? Do you think drunks have a checkpoint phone tree? And if so, how would the first drunk know? None of them got pulled over.

You are entitled to your opinion. If that is really the way you see the world, I would just hope that you vote less, or, better yet, not at all.

I think those who drink and drive should Fk Off And Die -- but don't take innocents out with you. I am not a cop lover, and I think most 'pay the fine' citations based on 'we wouldn't have known if we hadn't pulled you over' are bullshiat, especially when those are the only citations which come out of a particular traffic stop.

But DWI isn't one of those. If you're drunk, fk you. That is not an issue of bogus traffic stop leading to bogus citation leading to (in some cases) bogus warrants, when the driver receives no citation for disobeying phantom traffic rule that was the alleged cause of the stop.

As of the writing of the article above, one of the apps available which caused the problem was DUI Dodger, with the designer asking folks to download and use it in order to fight back against checkpoints.

But drunks had been using cell phones, pagers and whatnot to warn one another about checkpoints for a long time.

I live in Norway, where an average speeding ticket costs about $600--- rather than the $100-ish it costs in the US. The high fine is a serious deterrent to speeding, so few people speed, and there is little revenue to be generated. In the US, the fines are tolerable--- a surcharge for arriving faster-- and in the US, it is simply regarded as bad luck to get a ticket, since 'everyone' speeds.

Public safety is NOT the issue with traffic laws in the US--- same with DWI. Around here, there is zero-tolerance (not the absurdly high BAC levels that are legal in the US), and fines begin at $10K (here in Norway). You are considered a serious fark-up if you get a DUI. In the US, it is a rite of passage--- no big deal- to get a DUI (first offense, at least). It is a joke. If they want to get serious, set serious fines and serious consequences. Otherwise, it is all a money-grab.

Jenna Tellya: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And if said intoxicated cyclist hit a pedestrian because they couldn't stop at full speed?

In my fantasy world, penalties are based on the amount of increased risk to others. I'm not saying BUI should be legal, just that DUI penalties are based on motor vehicle risks, and the scenarios where drunk cycling causes death or serious injury to others are far less likely than drunk driving, thus the penalty should be much much less. Minor stuff I think should carry the same penalties for cyclists and drivers, as things like failure to signal rarely cause serious incidents in either case, thus the total increased risk of harm is similar.

What you are saying may have been true in the late 80's and early 90's, however most US states at this point .04 is common and is the limit in my state which is lower than the .05 in Finland (Finland my be wrong that was just a quick search engine check.) Typically the first offense is loss of license for a year and around $1500 in direct fines, while your auto insurance (required in most states) goes up $75 per month for the next 5 years for another $4500 in indirect fines, at least $300 for your vechile towing and impoundment (typically significantly more) as well as having lost wages for time incarcerated. (which varies wildly but is almost assured to be at least 48 hours). There are rare instances where people get less than that but it has become big business in the US to pull over the slightly impaired (while letting impairment for other reasons go). Give them a breath test on a breathalizer (which have been shown to be wildly inaccurate in field settings) and rake in allot of money.

I'm not defending drunk driving in fact I despise it and don't do it but in many ways with the constant lowering of the legal limit here in the US along with questionable enforcement practices it has become apparent that it is no longer about safety but about money.

s1ugg0:Jenna Tellya: this is one case where I think the rules of the road, and especially the steep penalties, should not apply to bicyclists. I was hit by a drunk bicyclist. I had to pop my side-view mirror back into place after the crash. The guy should be applauded for not getting behind the wheel of a dangerous vehicle and instead putting basically only himself at risk.

Ok, here's a what if. How would you feel if you were driving and drunk bicyclist rides right out into a county road intersection and gets blasted at 50 miles per hour. Would you be so casual if your hood was dented, your wind shield shattered, and blood all over your car? You get out of the car slowly only to see the horribly mangled corpse who's organs are now spread over a 20 foot area.

Now you and others will say "Serves him right, I don't care." But one person dead and another who is DEFINITELY going to have emotional trauma for the rest of their life.

Yea, I'm ok with the penalties. But then again when I go drinking the most mechanical device I operate is a bottle opener.

So, your answer to the problem of getting run over is to penalize people who neither ran anyone over nor got run over themselves? You're a douche bag.

s1ugg0:Jenna Tellya: this is one case where I think the rules of the road, and especially the steep penalties, should not apply to bicyclists. I was hit by a drunk bicyclist. I had to pop my side-view mirror back into place after the crash. The guy should be applauded for not getting behind the wheel of a dangerous vehicle and instead putting basically only himself at risk.

Ok, here's a what if. How would you feel if you were driving and drunk bicyclist rides right out into a county road intersection and gets blasted at 50 miles per hour. Would you be so casual if your hood was dented, your wind shield shattered, and blood all over your car? You get out of the car slowly only to see the horribly mangled corpse who's organs are now spread over a 20 foot area.

Now you and others will say "Serves him right, I don't care." But one person dead and another who is DEFINITELY going to have emotional trauma for the rest of their life.

Yea, I'm ok with the penalties. But then again when I go drinking the most mechanical device I operate is a bottle opener.

Exactly.

A few years ago, I was headed home on a four lane city street and saw four or five of these spandex warriors leaving a bar on their cycles, weaving all over the outside eastbound lane. I was also eastbound and got into the inside lane to give them as wide a berth as possible, pass them and get away from them.

Three blocks later, I was stopped at a red light, in the left turn lane and signaling for a left turn and I see them come up behind me. The light changes, I pull forward and, just as I am about to start my left turn, these assholes pass me on my left, riding right on the double yellow line and also turn.

WTF?

Fortunately, I still have fast reflexes and stopped in time to avoid mowing them down. I waited for them to clear thew intersection and then made my turn. the went on to a bar just down the street from my apartment and went in. I was plenty angry and called the cops. It was then that I learned it was not a crime to cycle drunk in Des Moines. Even though I could identify each, they would not come out and bust them for public intoxication or being a safety hazard. However, had I hit one of the dipshiats when they turned in front of me, I just know I would have been the one arrested.

Actually in California riding a bike DUI is the same as if you were driving a car. Your licence can still get yanked and your insurance rates will go up when you get it back.

THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

"Although California courts have repeatedly ruled that a bicycle is not a vehicle covered by the state's drunk driving laws, the California Vehicle Code makes it a misdemeanor for any person to ride a bicycle while intoxicated. Unlike DUI, which carries much heavier punishments, people charged with riding a bicycle under the influence face a possible fine of $250."

Unfortunately, it won't work. Oh, you'll probably feel better about yourself, but it won't change the way they act. They're half-drunk and used to having cars almost hit them (sometimes it's even their fault) so if everything goes well, they'll just end up at the next bar with another story about some jerk who almost hit them. If everything doesn't go well, they'll end up yelling at you for it, and nothing you say will be able to convince them that they might be at fault - now they're drunk AND righteous.

So please don't try to teach them a lesson. It won't help the situation. Just drive (or bike) carefully, since you can't count on anyone else on the road doing it.